alternative apportionment

The Michigan Court of Appeals reaffirmed its March 2020 decision that application of the state’s statutory apportionment formula was unconstitutionally distortive as applied to a taxpayer’s Michigan Business Tax (MBT) liability. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Court of Appeals’ March 2020 decision, which was the topic of a prior SALT Shaker post

At a March 4, 2021 meeting of the California Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) three-member Board, FTB Staff announced on the record that a Board hearing on an alternative apportionment petition is not required to exhaust administrative remedies. The announcement was made during Staff’s recommendation to the Board to begin the formal regulatory process to amend

On December 29, 2020, California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) staff announced a twenty-day comment period for four changes to the proposed draft language of its 25137 Regulation (Alternative Apportionment). After the twenty-day comment period expires, FTB staff intends to present the newly revised proposed draft Regulation language to the three member Franchise Tax Board to

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that the state’s statutory apportionment formula was unconstitutionally distortive as applied to a taxpayer’s Michigan Business Tax (MBT) liability. Therefore, the taxpayer was entitled to use an alternative formula. The court noted that this is an exceptional case where the taxpayer met its burden to show that the

The New Mexico Administrative Hearings Office determined that UPS may depart from the statutory apportionment method for trucking companies, based on mileage driven in the state, because it produces a result that bears no rational relationship to UPS’s New Mexico business activity.

Echoing a 1992 Montana Supreme Court case also involving UPS, the Administrative Hearings

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the Maryland Tax Court’s decision holding that the State Comptroller can subject an out-of-state holding company to tax because the holding company did not have economic substance apart from its parent, which was conducting business in the state. In addition to upholding the assessment of tax, the Court

The Virginia Supreme Court held that the use of the cost-of-performance method to apportion nearly 100% of the taxpayer’s sales of services to Virginia did not violate the U.S. Constitution, even though over 95% of the taxpayer’s customers were located outside of the state – perhaps an expected result for a services company based in

The New Jersey Tax Court rejected the Division of Taxation’s application of a five-factor alternative apportionment formula as invalid rulemaking under New Jersey’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Tax Court previously determined that an application of the statutory apportionment formula in effect prior to 2011 for companies without a “regular place of business” outside New

The State of New Mexico Administrative Hearings Office held that the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department could not remove the payroll factor from the apportionment factor calculation of a taxpayer in the credit card and personal lending business. The Hearings Office determined that “the party seeking to depart from the proscribed apportionment method,” which,